From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "paulus@samba.org" <paulus@samba.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page tab
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 14:25:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5368F0DD.9090107@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wqdzq98f.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 05/06/2014 04:20 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> writes:
>
>> On 06.05.14 09:19, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 09:05 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> On 06.05.14 02:06, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 17:16 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>> Isn't this a greater problem? We should start swapping before we hit
>>>>>> the point where non movable kernel allocation fails, no?
>>>>> Possibly but the fact remains, this can be avoided by making sure that
>>>>> if we create a CMA reserve for KVM, then it uses it rather than using
>>>>> the rest of main memory for hash tables.
>>>> So why were we preferring non-CMA memory before? Considering that Aneesh
>>>> introduced that logic in fa61a4e3 I suppose this was just a mistake?
>>> I assume so.
> ....
> ...
>
>>> Whatever remains is split between CMA and the normal page allocator.
>>>
>>> Without Aneesh latest patch, when creating guests, KVM starts allocating
>>> it's hash tables from the latter instead of CMA (we never allocate from
>>> hugetlb pool afaik, only guest pages do that, not hash tables).
>>>
>>> So we exhaust the page allocator and get linux into OOM conditions
>>> while there's plenty of space in CMA. But the kernel cannot use CMA for
>>> it's own allocations, only to back user pages, which we don't care about
>>> because our guest pages are covered by our hugetlb reserve :-)
>> Yes. Write that in the patch description and I'm happy ;).
>>
> How about the below:
>
> Current KVM code first try to allocate hash page table from the normal
> page allocator before falling back to the CMA reserve region. One of the
> side effects of that is, we could exhaust the page allocator and get
> linux into OOM conditions while we still have plenty of space in CMA.
>
> Fix this by trying the CMA reserve region first and then falling back
> to normal page allocator if we fail to get enough memory from CMA
> reserve area.
Fix the grammar (I've spotted a good number of mistakes), then this
should do. Please also improve the headline.
Alex
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "paulus@samba.org" <paulus@samba.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table.
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 16:25:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5368F0DD.9090107@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wqdzq98f.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 05/06/2014 04:20 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> writes:
>
>> On 06.05.14 09:19, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 09:05 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> On 06.05.14 02:06, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 17:16 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>> Isn't this a greater problem? We should start swapping before we hit
>>>>>> the point where non movable kernel allocation fails, no?
>>>>> Possibly but the fact remains, this can be avoided by making sure that
>>>>> if we create a CMA reserve for KVM, then it uses it rather than using
>>>>> the rest of main memory for hash tables.
>>>> So why were we preferring non-CMA memory before? Considering that Aneesh
>>>> introduced that logic in fa61a4e3 I suppose this was just a mistake?
>>> I assume so.
> ....
> ...
>
>>> Whatever remains is split between CMA and the normal page allocator.
>>>
>>> Without Aneesh latest patch, when creating guests, KVM starts allocating
>>> it's hash tables from the latter instead of CMA (we never allocate from
>>> hugetlb pool afaik, only guest pages do that, not hash tables).
>>>
>>> So we exhaust the page allocator and get linux into OOM conditions
>>> while there's plenty of space in CMA. But the kernel cannot use CMA for
>>> it's own allocations, only to back user pages, which we don't care about
>>> because our guest pages are covered by our hugetlb reserve :-)
>> Yes. Write that in the patch description and I'm happy ;).
>>
> How about the below:
>
> Current KVM code first try to allocate hash page table from the normal
> page allocator before falling back to the CMA reserve region. One of the
> side effects of that is, we could exhaust the page allocator and get
> linux into OOM conditions while we still have plenty of space in CMA.
>
> Fix this by trying the CMA reserve region first and then falling back
> to normal page allocator if we fail to get enough memory from CMA
> reserve area.
Fix the grammar (I've spotted a good number of mistakes), then this
should do. Please also improve the headline.
Alex
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "paulus@samba.org" <paulus@samba.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table.
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 16:25:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5368F0DD.9090107@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wqdzq98f.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 05/06/2014 04:20 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> writes:
>
>> On 06.05.14 09:19, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 09:05 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> On 06.05.14 02:06, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 17:16 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>> Isn't this a greater problem? We should start swapping before we hit
>>>>>> the point where non movable kernel allocation fails, no?
>>>>> Possibly but the fact remains, this can be avoided by making sure that
>>>>> if we create a CMA reserve for KVM, then it uses it rather than using
>>>>> the rest of main memory for hash tables.
>>>> So why were we preferring non-CMA memory before? Considering that Aneesh
>>>> introduced that logic in fa61a4e3 I suppose this was just a mistake?
>>> I assume so.
> ....
> ...
>
>>> Whatever remains is split between CMA and the normal page allocator.
>>>
>>> Without Aneesh latest patch, when creating guests, KVM starts allocating
>>> it's hash tables from the latter instead of CMA (we never allocate from
>>> hugetlb pool afaik, only guest pages do that, not hash tables).
>>>
>>> So we exhaust the page allocator and get linux into OOM conditions
>>> while there's plenty of space in CMA. But the kernel cannot use CMA for
>>> it's own allocations, only to back user pages, which we don't care about
>>> because our guest pages are covered by our hugetlb reserve :-)
>> Yes. Write that in the patch description and I'm happy ;).
>>
> How about the below:
>
> Current KVM code first try to allocate hash page table from the normal
> page allocator before falling back to the CMA reserve region. One of the
> side effects of that is, we could exhaust the page allocator and get
> linux into OOM conditions while we still have plenty of space in CMA.
>
> Fix this by trying the CMA reserve region first and then falling back
> to normal page allocator if we fail to get enough memory from CMA
> reserve area.
Fix the grammar (I've spotted a good number of mistakes), then this
should do. Please also improve the headline.
Alex
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-06 14:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-04 17:25 [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-04 17:37 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-04 17:25 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-05 11:26 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page tab Alexander Graf
2014-05-05 11:26 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table Alexander Graf
2014-05-05 11:26 ` Alexander Graf
2014-05-05 14:35 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-05 14:47 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page tab Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-05 14:35 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-05 15:16 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page tab Alexander Graf
2014-05-05 15:16 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table Alexander Graf
2014-05-05 15:16 ` Alexander Graf
2014-05-05 15:40 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-05 15:52 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page tab Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-05 15:40 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-06 0:06 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page tab Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-06 0:06 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-06 0:06 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-06 7:05 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page tab Alexander Graf
2014-05-06 7:05 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table Alexander Graf
2014-05-06 7:05 ` Alexander Graf
2014-05-06 7:19 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page tab Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-06 7:19 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-06 7:19 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-06 7:21 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page tab Alexander Graf
2014-05-06 7:21 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table Alexander Graf
2014-05-06 7:21 ` Alexander Graf
2014-05-06 14:20 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-06 14:32 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page tab Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-06 14:20 ` [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-06 14:25 ` Alexander Graf [this message]
2014-05-06 14:25 ` Alexander Graf
2014-05-06 14:25 ` Alexander Graf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5368F0DD.9090107@suse.de \
--to=agraf@suse.de \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.